You're right that calling the service centers themselves is probably the best idea. I know a lot of the salesmen in the store have no clue and have given me highly inaccurate estimates as well.

That's interesting. A lot of people say "Why get Platinum over Steel?" In addition to the weight, is platinum also tougher/more durable than steel? What other reasons would someone get platinum?

Definitely, call the service centers and ask what an overhaul costs for which ever pieces you are considering. You can look up where your nearest service center is/contact info online. It makes far more sense to go directly to the source rather than hoping a sales associate has recently dealt with a service issue relating to one of the exact watches you have questions about servicing.

As for durability, I can't really tell you if Platinum is more durable than stainless steel. I'd probably treat my precious metal watches with a bit more care than my steel watches, although I'm pretty gentle with all of my watches. The question "Why get Platinum over Steel?" That's a bit like someone asking why purchase a pair of crocodile John Lobb shoes for several thousand dollars, if a pair of $250 shoes with croc embossing fit you comfortably. Sure 2 pairs of brown could look the same to most people so why bother spending more. There are things that go beyond simply the basic appearance and price. You get into the quality of materials, the workmanship, and intangibles like not having the same thing as a dozen other people at work, or appreciating the tanning process used with finer leathers.

I think Platinum is a bit of a thinking man's choice. It flies under the radar, it could be mistaken for steel or white gold by casual observers. Its not as blingy as yellow gold, particularly on a big watch like a Daytona. However, its a precious metal that is more durable than white gold, it needs no plating to look white (some white gold is rhodium plated because some compositions of WG in their natural state look dark gray), its has sort of a luxurious heaviness not experienced with steel. In addition, if you scratch gold, its very easy to polish the scratches out, but because its such a soft/delicate material you lose some of the metal (I've even seen 40 year old wedding bands that had nearly worn through in some places just from daily wear, it obviously depends on ones activities, but it can happen). However, when you polish platinum you lose almost no metal, you merely move the displaced molecules around, its just far more durable than gold.

Its purer than white gold, 95% pure platinum for most watches (I've seen jewelry grade platinum ranging from 90-99% pure, but the most common is 95%, again an 18Kt gold watch is only going to be 75% gold. In addition, one can consider the intangibles, its more difficult to work with than gold, its more difficult to mine ( I read something years ago to the effect of it take about 3 tons of gold ore to produce 1 ounce of pure fine gold while it takes 10 tons of platinum ore to produce 1 ounce of pure platinum). So you are talking about more work, more refining etc. In addition, companies usually produce far more watches in gold than they do platinum, so there is a rarity factor. Think of the number of gold Rolex watches one sees in person or even in a watch shop, relative to the number of platinum Rolex watches one sees. Platinum certainly not for everyone, and for some people maybe a steel watch is the right choice. If I were buying a precious metal watch and its going to be gold, I would choose rose gold, as its less brassy than yellow gold, and it looks like gold. I had a white gold watch, but its qualities didn't seem special enough to justify the premium over steel or even over RG or YG (WG, particularly if plated with rhodium often costs a bit more than rose or yg when a watch is new...and then you deal with possible re-plating issues), and it wasn't as unique or durable as platinum. However, IMHO based on the rarity, difficulty to mine, difficulty to work with, additional labor it requires to procure/produce, and its durability its worth a premium if one can afford a fine watch in platinum. I certainly hope to add a platinum watch in my collection some day. In the words of Ferris Bueller, ..."It is so choice. If you have the means I highly recommend picking one up!"

Personally I always hate to see that odd date hanging there at three o'clock, especially on such a simple dial. There are a million watches with the same layout, so perhaps it's just me.

So, this was regarding a $1,200 Ebel I had posted about a week ago. (more flattering pic below) Like you say, the date is at the 3 and it's not an iconic brand. Also, this watch is 41mm where I'm hoping for 38. I do like the stick markers and that the watch has a second hand though.

The Hamilton Intra-Matic was my front runner for a while and the date is at the 6, but there's no second hand and there's quite a bit of deliberate 'vintageness' going on with this one.

This Frederique Constant has been on my radar at $1,100+ but again there's no second hand and the date is at the 3. I'm also not so sure about the rounded, tubular bezel.

Of the hundreds of watches that I've browsed over the last week, the only one I've found with the uncomplicated silver dial, is 38mm and fairly thin, refined/(simple) stick markers and date at the 6 is this Seiko. Somehow my biggest disappointment with this watch is that it only costs 80 bucks which doesn't feel very indulgent at all. Where's the fun in blowing $80? When I'm sitting in that new cocktail lounge in Liberty Village I wanna feel at least a little bit pimpish with the nice watch factor that won't come from an $80 piece. (I'll have to rely on my height, good looks and fantastic charm) But still, compared to that Ebel, I could throw a black alligator strap on to the Seiko and have a grand left over for other wardrobe essentials (or for when my transmission goes out [knock on wood]).

I think that would be a great guilt-free choice. Except it doesn't feel special enough to you.

Just to muddy the waters (and maybe no surprise that I'm going to suggest a German to you), how about this?

The 3 o'clock date is balanced cleverly by the way the numbers are laid out, the Max Bill design is super-cool Bauhaus and interesting, it's a practical mechanical automatic like the others you chose, and it's 38mm in diameter. Oh, and it will probably cost you about $1200.

I think that would be a great guilt-free choice. Except it doesn't feel special enough to you.

Just to muddy the waters (and maybe no surprise that I'm going to suggest a German to you), how about this?

The 3 o'clock date is balanced cleverly by the way the numbers are laid out, the Max Bill design is super-cool Bauhaus and interesting, it's a practical mechanical automatic like the others you chose, and it's 38mm in diameter. Oh, and it will probably cost you about $1200.

Because who cares about your transmission? :)

P.S. You should go to bed earlier.

Mimo, Boss, I'd really be surprised if you could post a 'heard of'' watch in the $500-$1,200 range that I haven't looked at over the last week. I'd seen the Max Bill and noted the date being incorporated at the 3. Honestly, I prefer the clean look of the Seiko even if I do know that it's cheap watch. It's true that the Seiko might not be all that special to me but I do admit to a certain sentimental attachment to the $1,000 that would be the price difference. As I haven't really found a watch that I 'have' to have, anything I did buy would be a place holder. On the other hand I don't want to be out in a jacket and tie and not be wearing a watch. I'm a bit relieved really, and maybe pleased with myself even, that if what I'm buying will only be a stop gap at least I found an acceptable option (to me) for very cheap and the urge to blow a weeks pay on a non-necessity is gradually subsiding.

And I have a couple of days off before I need to get back to sleeping the regular hours. :)

As always, thank you for the much appreciated feedback and suggestions.

I do admit to a certain sentimental attachment to the $1,000 that would be the price difference

I hear you; enough said! Which is why I also own a Seiko, and just cancelled the $1000 watch I had already ordered. And I've become unexpectedly fond of my Seiko, too, so much so that I bought my son one. Can't argue with that kind of value; enjoy!

I spent a fair amount of time looking at Stowa and Nomos this week, and am now paying closer attention to that Junghans... the temptation to blow that grand is creeping up again... Well I do hope you're satisfied.

Haha...if it were in my account, I doubt I'd have had the discipline. But like you, it's kind of a trade off with the wardrobe: I've lost a lot of weight in the last few months, to that point that literally none of my suits are anywhere near fitting me, and beyond adjustment, so I'm keeping the local tailors busy, and the bills are on the way...

The Junghans is certainly realistic in price and I like it, but having fallen for the Nomos I think I'll have to wait until I can afford it, or better: as you say, a grand is a grand, and I think it's too much for me to drop on something that I already know isn't the one I really want. The Stowa I will look at again though, for sure: probably not the Prodiver as I like the Seiko Orange Monster so much, and if I want to step up to a dive watch as casual wear, well one day I know it's got to be the Sub. The Tudor Black bay might hold a reasonable middle ground.

The Stowa I think I will probably get at some point is the Marine Original: it has the brand history of pilot watches, the design is very classic and versatile I think, and again, it's about a grand - complete with the croc strap. The only downside with Stowa, from your perspective, is the lack of a true dress watch of understated size. Anyway, one at a time, I suppose. :)

I mean, there are a dozen cool Rolexes that I would be proud to own, including the Daytona. But seventy-five grand? To be honest, $13k for the steel one seems a bit steep these days too. But that much money could just buy so much love. Like all of those dozen cool Rolexes.

Or, if platinum chronographs are your thing, this one described by no less a master than Laurent Ferrier as "the best serially-produced watch" (apparently he bought one himself).

$75k for a platinum chronograph....I think I'd want it to look like this. Or get a nearly new one and have that steel Daytona with the change.

#langefanboi

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dino944

As for durability, I can't really tell you if Platinum is more durable than stainless steel. I'd probably treat my precious metal watches with a bit more care than my steel watches, although I'm pretty gentle with all of my watches. The question "Why get Platinum over Steel?" That's a bit like someone asking why purchase a pair of crocodile John Lobb shoes for several thousand dollars, if a pair of $250 shoes with croc embossing fit you comfortably. Sure 2 pairs of brown could look the same to most people so why bother spending more. There are things that go beyond simply the basic appearance and price. You get into the quality of materials, the workmanship, and intangibles like not having the same thing as a dozen other people at work, or appreciating the tanning process used with finer leathers.

I think Platinum is a bit of a thinking man's choice. It flies under the radar, it could be mistaken for steel or white gold by casual observers. Its not as blingy as yellow gold, particularly on a big watch like a Daytona. However, its a precious metal that is more durable than white gold, it needs no plating to look white (some white gold is rhodium plated because some compositions of WG in their natural state look dark gray), its has sort of a luxurious heaviness not experienced with steel. In addition, if you scratch gold, its very easy to polish the scratches out, but because its such a soft/delicate material you lose some of the metal (I've even seen 40 year old wedding bands that had nearly worn through in some places just from daily wear, it obviously depends on ones activities, but it can happen). However, when you polish platinum you lose almost no metal, you merely move the displaced molecules around, its just far more durable than gold.

Its purer than white gold, 95% pure platinum for most watches (I've seen jewelry grade platinum ranging from 90-99% pure, but the most common is 95%, again an 18Kt gold watch is only going to be 75% gold. In addition, one can consider the intangibles, its more difficult to work with than gold, its more difficult to mine ( I read something years ago to the effect of it take about 3 tons of gold ore to produce 1 ounce of pure fine gold while it takes 10 tons of platinum ore to produce 1 ounce of pure platinum). So you are talking about more work, more refining etc. In addition, companies usually produce far more watches in gold than they do platinum, so there is a rarity factor. Think of the number of gold Rolex watches one sees in person or even in a watch shop, relative to the number of platinum Rolex watches one sees. Platinum certainly not for everyone, and for some people maybe a steel watch is the right choice. If I were buying a precious metal watch and its going to be gold, I would choose rose gold, as its less brassy than yellow gold, and it looks like gold. I had a white gold watch, but its qualities didn't seem special enough to justify the premium over steel or even over RG or YG (WG, particularly if plated with rhodium often costs a bit more than rose or yg when a watch is new...and then you deal with possible re-plating issues), and it wasn't as unique or durable as platinum. However, IMHO based on the rarity, difficulty to mine, difficulty to work with, additional labor it requires to procure/produce, and its durability its worth a premium if one can afford a fine watch in platinum. I certainly hope to add a platinum watch in my collection some day. In the words of Ferris Bueller, ..."It is so choice. If you have the means I highly recommend picking one up!"